The battle of Fort Trumbull

Page 2 of 2 -- Ruthlessly, the NLDC began effacing the old neighborhood. It pressed homeowners to sell, bulldozed their homes when they left, and used eminent domain to take the property of the few who refused to go.

ADVERTISEMENT

Some of those owners have never known any other home. Matt Dery grew up in Fort Trumbull; his 83-year-old mother was born in the house at Walbach and East streets and has lived there all her life. Other owners, like Susette Kelo, moved to the neighborhood despite its drawbacks because they loved what they found there - in Kelo's case, a Victorian home full of character overlooking the Thames, just minutes by boat from the fishing in Long Island Sound.

But to the NLDC and city hall, such considerations count for nothing. What matters to them is that by clearing Fort Trumbull and letting a private developer rebuild it, the city will expand its tax base. "The public benefit to this is far and away beyond the price that's being paid by a very small number of the community," says Christopher Riley, the NLDC spokesman.

But is that a sufficient reason to seize people's homes by eminent domain? Can private owners really be forced to give up their property because the government has identified other private owners who can make more money with them? Is that how the power of eminent domain is supposed to be used - to expel families from their homes for the sake of expanding the tax base?

No, says Scott Bullock. Not in America. Not while the Bill of Rights is in force.

Bullock is a litigator with the Institute for Justice, a Washington-based civil liberties law firm that has fought eminent domain abuse in cases nationwide. It is representing the Fort Trumbull homeowners in their fight with New London, in part, as Bullock told the court in his opening argument, because a vital principle is at stake: The power of eminent domain is not unlimited.

"Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation," commands the Fifth Amendment. For public use - not for private gain. It is one thing to make an owner sell his land so that a school or post office can be built on it. But to dispossess one private owner so that another can be enriched - something municipalities have been doing with growing aggressiveness - is very different, and very wrong. The abuse of eminent domain has become a national plague, and the Institute for Justice is fighting to end it. The battle of Fort Trumbull bears watching.

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.